Deeter, Nathan v. Saul, Andrew
OPINION and ORDER affirming Commissioner decision regarding Social Security benefits re: 14 Social Security Transcript; canceling the July 22, 2021 oral argument. Signed by District Judge James D. Peterson on 7/15/2021. (kwf)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
OPINION and ORDER
Acting Commissioner of Social Security,
Plaintiff Nathan Deeter seeks judicial review of a final decision of defendant Kilolo
Kijakazi, Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, finding him not disabled
under the Social Security Act. Deeter contends that administrative law judge (ALJ) Michael
Schaefer erred in two ways: (1) by improperly evaluating medical-opinion evidence; and (2) by
failing to support his conclusions regarding Deeter’s ability to interact with others. The court
isn’t persuaded that the ALJ erred, so the court will affirm the ALJ’s decision. The hearing
scheduled for July 22, 2021, is canceled.
Deeter sought benefits based on physical and mental impairments, alleging disability
beginning in April 2018. R. 13, 16.2 In a May 2020 decision, the ALJ found that Deeter
suffered from the severe impairments of depression, alcohol addiction disorder, and substance
The court has changed the caption to reflect Kilolo Kijakazi’s recent appointment as acting
Record cites are to the administrative transcript, located at Dkt. 14.
addiction disorder (THC). R. 16. The ALJ ascribed to Deeter the residual functional capacity
(RFC) to perform a full range of work at all exertional levels with the following mental
restrictions, along with environmental restrictions that are not at issue in this appeal:
[Deeter] can understand, remember, or carry out only simple
instructions and routine tasks . . . in a work environment with
few, if any, changes in the work duties. He is limited to a work
environment with no fast-paced production quota or rate . . . .
[Deeter] is capable of occasional, brief and superficial,
interactions with the public, but is precluded from work involving
direct customer service. He is capable of only occasional
interactions with co-workers and is capable of frequent
interactions with supervisors.
R. 19. Based on the testimony of a vocational expert, the ALJ found that Deeter was not
disabled because he could work as a janitor, officer clerk, or housekeeper. R. 24–25. The
Appeals Council declined review. R. 1–3. Deeter now appeals to this court.
On appeal, the court’s role is to determine whether the ALJ’s decision is supported by
substantial evidence, meaning that the court looks to the administrative record and asks
“whether it contains sufficient evidence to support the agency’s factual determination.” Biestek
v. Berryhill, 139 S. Ct. 1148, 1154 (2019). The standard is not high and requires “only such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Id.
But the ALJ’s decision must identify the relevant evidence and build a “logical bridge” between
that evidence and the final determination. Moon v. Colvin, 763 F.3d 718, 721 (7th Cir. 2014).
A. Opinion evidence
Deeter contends that the ALJ erred in evaluating the opinion evidence, primarily
focusing on opinions from two examining psychologists, Sandra Frodin and Peggy Dennison.
Frodin opined that Deeter had “marked” limitations in five areas: (1) his ability to understand,
remember, and carry out simple instructions; (2) his ability to respond appropriately to
supervisors and coworkers; (3) his ability to maintain concentration, attention, and work pace;
(4) his ability to withstand routine work stresses; and (5) his ability to adapt to changes.
R. 334. The ALJ said that Frodin’s conclusions were not persuasive for three reasons: (1) they
were supported only by a single examination of Deeter; (2) they were “not fully consistent”
with Frodin’s objective findings; and (3) Frodin’s conclusions “relied heavily upon [Deeter’s]
subjective statements.” R. 22–23. Frodin examined Deeter in October 2013, about four and
one-half years before Deeter’s alleged onset date. But the ALJ did not cite the age of Frodin’s
opinion as a reason for discounting it.
Dennison opined that “Deeter will need to find employment that does not emphasize
conceptual skills, as he will generally need supervision and support. With encouragement and
support he may be able to perform a vocation competently.” R. 394. The ALJ said that
Dennison’s opinion was not persuasive for three reasons: (1) it did not “provide a function-byfunction analysis of [Deeter’s] work related abilities”; (2) it was inconsistent with Dennison’s
objective findings and was supported by “little objective evidence”; and (3) it was inconsistent
with the opinion of Catherine Bard, a reviewing psychologist who concluded that Deeter could
understand and remember two- to three-step instructions. R. 23.
Deeter doesn’t challenge most of the ALJ’s reasons for discounting Frodin’s and
Dennison’s opinions in his initial brief. He addresses only the question of whether the opinions
were supported by objective evidence. He raises other objections for the first time in his reply
brief, but those are forfeited because he did not raise them in his initial brief. See Brown v.
Colvin, 661 F. App’x 894, 895 (7th Cir. 2016).
Deeter’s failure to address most of the ALJ’s reasons for discounting these opinions is
reason enough to uphold the ALJ’s decision. Whitcher v. Saul, No. 20-cv-445-jdp, 2021 WL
805570, at *2 (W.D. Wis. Mar. 3, 2021) (citing Hall v. Berryhill, 906 F.3d 640, 644 (7th Cir.
2018)). Even so, Deeter’s arguments are unpersuasive.
Deeter’s main argument in his initial brief is that the ALJ should have considered
whether Frodin’s and Dennison’s opinions were consistent with one another, as well as with a
2009 evaluation by psychologist Tim Caufield. Deeter relies on 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520c(c)(2),
which states that opinion evidence is more persuasive if it is consistent with evidence from
medical and nonmedical sources. Deeter includes a six-page table in his brief that quotes
extensively from Frodin’s and Dennison’s opinions. Dkt. 17, at 18–24. But Deeter doesn’t
highlight where the two opinions are consistent or explain elsewhere why he believes them to
be consistent, simply stating that the table shows their “general consistency.” Id. at 18. Nor
does Deeter explain why the two opinions are consistent with Caufield’s 2009 evaluation,
which the ALJ found unpersuasive because it predated Deeter’s alleged onset date by more
than eight years. And Deeter doesn’t connect the supposed consistencies among the opinions
to specific restrictions that he believes should have been included in his RFC.
Deeter’s only attempt to explain why the three opinions are consistent is incomplete.
All three examining medical experts found that Deeter had limited
or no ability to perform sustained work based on [mental
symptoms x, y, z].
Id. at 27. It appears that Deeter’s counsel forgot to fill in the blank before submitting his brief.
But even if Deeter had shown that the opinions were consistent with one another, the ALJ had
valid reasons for discounting the three opinions separately. Deeter identifies nothing that calls
the ALJ’s reasons into question.
Deeter’s other arguments on the ALJ’s handling of the opinion evidence require little
discussion. First, he says that the ALJ should have considered that Frodin and Dennison based
their opinions on specialized mental status examinations, which he contends “provide objective
criteria to a situation which generally lacks objective testing.” Id. at 26. But the ALJ did consider
their objective evaluations; as noted above, he found both psychologists’ opinions inconsistent
with their objective findings, which is one of the reasons he gave for discounting the opinions.
Specifically, he noted Frodin’s finding that Deeter was able “to do Serial 3’s from 100 to 61
correctly in 30 seconds and follow a 3-step command and had no difficulty following a
conversation” and Dennison’s finding that Deeter “maintained the ability to concentrate on
simple sequential tasks[,] . . . was able to recall three objects immediately, and [had] no
difficulty remembering them after five minutes.” R. 22–23. Deeter doesn’t challenge the ALJ’s
conclusion that this evidence was inconsistent with Frodin’s and Dennison’s opinions.
Second, Deeter says that the ALJ cherry-picked the record in concluding that Frodin’s
and Dennison’s opinions were inconsistent with the objective evidence. In support of this
argument, he cites records that describe his subjective complaints—anger issues, depression, a
lack of motivation, distractibility, and concentration problems. Id. at 29 (citing R. 340–43,
R. 427–33). The ALJ expressly acknowledged these subjective complaints, concluding that they
were not fully credible. R. 20–21. Deeter doesn’t challenge any of the ALJ’s reasons for
discounting his subjective complaints, so he hasn’t shown that the ALJ erred by failing to
consider whether they were consistent with Frodin’s and Dennison’s opinions.
Third, Deeter says without elaboration that the ALJ failed to consider the nature of
Frodin’s and Dennison’s relationships with Deeter and their specializations. Dkt. 17, at 24.
But he does not develop the argument, so he has forfeited that one, too. See United States v.
Berkowitz, 927 F.2d 1376, 1384 (7th Cir. 1991) (“We repeatedly have made clear that
perfunctory and undeveloped arguments . . . are waived.”). And even if the argument were not
forfeited, it would fail. The ALJ did consider the nature of the psychologists’ relationship with
Deeter, noting that each had examined Deeter only a single time. And Deeter identifies nothing
exceptional in their credentials beyond their psychology degrees, which the ALJ expressly
Fourth, Deeter says that the RFC failed to account for several “moderate” limitations
found by Bard, the reviewing psychologist, on an agency worksheet. Dkt. 17, at 30–31. Deeter
devotes only half a paragraph to this undeveloped argument, and he did not reply to the
arguments raised in the commissioner’s response brief, so he has forfeited this argument as
Deeter hasn’t shown that the ALJ erred in evaluating the opinion evidence, so the court
will not remand on this ground.
B. Social functioning
Deeter contends that the ALJ failed to justify the restrictions in Deeter’s RFC that
limited his interactions with coworkers and the public. He says that the ALJ failed to base these
restrictions on medical-opinion evidence because the only medical opinion that the ALJ
credited was from a state-agency reviewing psychologist who did not opine that he had any
limitations in social functioning.
Deeter relies on the familiar rule that an ALJ may not “play doctor” by “ignor[ing]
expert opinions to arrive at his own, incorrect, interpretation of the medical evidence,” Meuser
v. Colvin, 838 F.3d 905, 911 (7th Cir. 2016). But this court has observed that this rule “is
generally applied when the ALJ rejects a medical opinion in favor of [a] more expansive view
of the claimant’s abilities,” not when the ALJ imposes greater restrictions on the claimant’s
ability to work than those proposed in a medical opinion. Luzar v. Saul, No. 19-cv-1018-jdp,
2020 WL 5249225, at *3 (W.D. Wis. Sept. 3, 2020). In other words, any error is harmless
because removing the challenged restriction could only increase the number of jobs that the
claimant could perform.
Deeter contends that Luzar is distinguishable because the ALJ should have included
even greater limitations. He cites Frodin’s statement that he had a “marked limitation” in his
“ability to respond appropriately to supervisors” and Dennison’s statement that he “had
problems getting along with others and had anger issues.” Id. at 9. But Deeter hasn’t shown
that the ALJ erred in discounting Frodin’s and Dennison’s opinions, so the ALJ wasn’t required
to accommodate them in the RFC. This argument doesn’t require remand, either.
IT IS ORDERED that the decision of the acting commissioner is AFFIRMED and the
July 22, 2021 oral argument is CANCELED. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment
in favor of the acting commissioner and close this case.
Entered July 15, 2021.
BY THE COURT:
JAMES D. PETERSON
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?